Case Note & Summary
The Second Appeal arose from a suit for specific performance and possession of an agricultural land (converted to non-agricultural) bearing Survey No.51/3, area 1 hectare 42 ares at Village Wadgon Teep, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. The land originally belonged exclusively to one Pandhari Ramkrushna Warrarkar, who expired in August 1995. Before his death, on 26/07/1995, Pandhari executed an agreement to sell the suit land to the respondent-plaintiff for Rs.30,000, receiving Rs.20,000 as earnest money and agreeing to balance Rs.10,000 at execution of sale deed, which was to be completed on 26/02/1996. After Pandhari's death, the property devolved upon his legal heirs—mother Bajabai, wife Manda, and four children Ranjana, Manisha, Vithalrao and Anjana, the latter four being minors at the time of suit. The plaintiff sought execution of sale deed, but the heirs failed to act, leading to the institution of the suit on 12/06/1996 before the Yavatmal Court. The trial court decreed the suit on 31/03/2000, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance consideration of Rs.10,000. The first appellate court affirmed the decree. The defendants then filed the present Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed substantial questions of law on 03/12/2018, focusing on whether specific performance could be granted against minor legal heirs without permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and whether the respondent was entitled to specific performance. At the hearing, the appellants contended that the agreement was invalid due to absence of court permission for minors' shares, the consideration was inadequate, and the minors were not properly represented. The respondent argued that the suit was maintainable against legal heirs under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that the minors, having attained majority, did not challenge the agreement within the three-year period under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court analyzed the execution of the agreement, noting that the scriber and attesting witness proved the execution, and the lower courts had concurrently found readiness and willingness. The court held that the suit against legal heirs was maintainable. However, it found that neither the trial court nor the first appellate court had considered the requirement of permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which was mandatory before a decree could be passed against the separate property of the deceased vendor in which minors had inherited shares. The court observed that the agreement was voidable at the instance of the minors under Section 8(3) of the Act, and that the mother's role as natural guardian did not obviate the need for court permission. The court distinguished the cases cited by the respondent, noting those pertained to joint family property where undivided shares did not require permission, unlike the separate property in the present case. The extract of the judgment available ends before the final operative order, so the ultimate decision and directions are not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Maintainability Against Legal Heirs - Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance is maintainable against legal heirs who claim title through the executant of the agreement - Court relied on Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 744 and Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 733 and held that suit against legal heirs of deceased vendor is maintainable (Para 9). B) Hindu Minority and Guardianship - Permission for Transfer of Minor's Interest in Separate Property - Section 8(2) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Before a decree for specific performance can be passed against the minor's share in the self-acquired property of the deceased vendor, permission of the court under Section 8(2) is mandatory - Lower courts erred by not framing an issue or recording a finding on this requirement and only considered natural guardian's signing of written statement, which is not a substitute (Paras 10-12, 16-18). C) Hindu Minority and Guardianship - Voidable Nature of Agreement Without Permission - Section 8(3) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Article 60 Limitation Act, 1963 - A transfer or agreement entered into by a natural guardian without court permission is voidable at the instance of the minor or person claiming under him - Minor must challenge it by suit within three years of attaining majority; inaction after majority may bar the plea; respondent's citations on joint family property distinguished as separate property requires permission (Paras 13-14, 17-19). D) Specific Relief - Proof of Agreement and Readiness and Willingness - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Execution of agreement for sale proved through scriber and attesting witness; lower courts concurrently found plaintiff ready and willing; High Court found no reason to interfere on these factual findings (Paras 6-8). E) Hindu Minority and Guardianship - Natural Guardian - Section 6(a) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Mother is natural guardian after father; however her signing of written statement on behalf of minor children cannot substitute for permission under Section 8(2) when a decree will affect the minor's separate property (Paras 11, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a decree for specific performance could be granted against minor legal heirs of a deceased vendor when the suit property was self-acquired and no permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was obtained; whether the agreement of sale is capable of being specifically enforced; and whether the respondent was entitled to specific performance on evidence.
Law Points
- Suit for specific performance maintainable against legal heirs under Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- permission under Section 8(2) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- 1956 required before decree against minor's share in self-acquired property
- agreement without permission voidable under Section 8(3)
- challengeable within three years of majority
- natural guardian's consent is not substitute for court permission.
